Appropriate Procedural Rules Applicable to Admiralty Actions
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
On Friday, the 25th day of April, 2025
Before Their Lordships
Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme
Stephen Jonah Adah
Jamilu Yammama Tukur
Justices, Supreme Court
SC. 804/2018
Between
1. GEEPEE INDUSTRIES NIGERIA LIMITED APPELLANTS
2. STACO INDUSTRIES NIGERIA LIMITED
And
1. THE MV “KOTA MANIS” RESPONDENT
2. THE SISTER SHIP OF THE MV “KOTA MANIS”
3. THE OWNER(S) OF THE MV “KOTA MANIS”
4. PIL NIGERIA LIMITED
5. THE MV “KOTA KASTURI”
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Stephen Jonah Adah, JSC)
Facts
The Appellant commenced an action before the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division by a Writ of Summons dated 3rd April 2013, claiming against the Respondents jointly and severally, liquidated damages and general damages for losses sustained by the 1st Appellant as a result of a fire incident on board the 1st Respondent while berthed at the Lagos Port. The Appellants alleged that the fire incident was caused by the Respondents’ negligence. In reaction, the Respondents filed a motion of notice in which they sought an order of court striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction. The basis of the Respondents’ application was that the Appellants failed to obtain the leave of the court to issue and serve the originating process on the 3rd Respondent who is resident outside the jurisdiction of the court. The Appellants opposed the application. In a ruling delivered on 3rd October 2013, the trial Court dismissed the Respondents’ objection and ordered the Respondents to file their defence. Dissatisfied, the Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed the appeal and struck out the Appellants’ Writ of Summons. Aggrieved by that decision, the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. Counsel for both set of parties filed and exchanged respective briefs of arguments on behalf of their clients.
Issue for Determination
In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court adopted the sole issue distilled by the Appellants and adopted by the Respondents as follows:
Whether in the circumstances of this case, the writ of summons was issued and served in compliance with the law.
Arguments
Counsel for the Appellants argued that the issuance and service of the writ of summons was in accordance with the law. Counsel submitted that service on a ship within jurisdiction in an action in rem suffices as good service for the 3rd Respondent as designated on the face of the writ. He argued further that the originating process in the action against the 3rd respondent being an action in rem was prepared, issued and served within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Lagos as none of the Respondents was outside jurisdiction and thus leave of court was not required. Counsel contended that by the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991 (“AJA”) and the Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules 2011 (“AJPR”) which are the applicable laws for admiralty actions, service of a writ of summons in an action in rem would be said to be effectively executed when it has been served on a ship or any property which at the time of service of the writ is on board the ship. Counsel maintained that the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act is not applicable for admiralty actions in rem and that no leave is required for issuance and service of a writ in an admiralty action in rem. Counsel further argued that the inclusion of the 3rd Respondent (“Owners of the MV Kota Manis”) does not transform the action to an action in personam that requires the leave of court for service outside jurisdiction especially since the 3rd Respondent is not named or specifically identified.
In response, counsel for the Respondent argued that the Appellants ought to have sought and obtained the prior leave of the Federal High Court to issue and serve the writ of summons on the Respondents, particularly the 3rd Respondent who are ordinarily resident abroad, outside the jurisdiction of the trial court, in line with the mandatory requirements of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act (SCPA) and the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009 (FHCR). Counsel argued that the Appellants’ failure to meet the condition precedent to serve the 3rd Respondents who is outside the jurisdiction of the trial court was fatal to the Appellants’ case as it stripped the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Counsel further argued that the 3rd and 4th Respondents who are neither ships nor maritime assets, but separate corporate entities automatically change the nature of the Appellants’ claim from an action in rem to an action in personam. Counsel maintained that in admiralty matters where an action in rem is combined with an action in personam, it is the provisions of the FHCR, AJPR and sections 97-99 of SCPA that are applicable. Counsel argued that service on the 3rd Respondent, a corporate entity resident outside Nigeria through the 4th Respondent cannot be deemed to be proper service. Relying on the case of OWNERS OF THE MV ARABELLA v NIGERIA AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CORPORATION (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1097) 182, counsel for the Respondents urged the Apex Court to hold that both the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act and the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009 are applicable to issues relating to the issuance and service of summons in civil matters including admiralty actions and non-compliance with their provisions rendered the Appellants’ writ incompetent.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
The Supreme Court held that the law and practice of admiralty law is regarded as sui generis (“of its own kind”) and in the Nigerian legal context, admiralty is treated as a specialised and distinct area of law that does not entirely conform to the general principles governing other branches of law. The Court held that Admiralty law follows its own set of procedural rules distinct from general civil procedure rules, and the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (AJA) and Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules (AJPR) are specialised and peculiar legislations that govern with Admiralty actions. The Apex Court held that these legislations allow for an action in rem which is a legal proceeding against a vessel or maritime property itself and an action in personam which is a legal proceeding initiated against a specific individual or entity, such as a ship owner, charterer or operator.
The Supreme Court held that the AJA and AJPR are custom made laws and rules enacted by the legislature for the purpose of regulating Admiralty causes, and there is no specific reference to the application of other rules of court to Admiralty matters. The Apex Court held further that while Sections 1 and 2 of the AJA prescribes the extent of the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, Order 3 of the AJPR prescribes the form and commencement of an admiralty action and how originating processes used to commence as admiralty actions are issued and served, referring specifically to Rules 6, 7., 8, 9, 11 and 12. The Apex Court found that the Court of Appeal was thus, in error, for applying Orders 12 Rule 8; Order 3 Rules 19 and 20 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 which had no application to Admiralty actions.
The Apex Court held further that Section 7(1) of AJA provides that a writ in a proceeding commenced as an action in rem in the court may be served on a ship or other property, while Order 6 Rules (1) and (2) of the AJPR also elaborately deals with service of writs in actions in rem or in personam in every circumstance; and there is no provision in both the AJA and AJPR that requires a party commencing an admiralty action to resort to the Sheriff and Civil Process Act or the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules. The Apex Court held that the provisions of the AJA and AJPR are clear and elaborate and it is the intendment of the law for the AJA and AJPR to govern Admiralty Causes, and not the Federal High Court Rules.
The Apex Court also referred to its decision in SAMUEL v APC (2023) 10 NWLR (PT. 1892) 195 and PDP v UCHE & ORS (2023) LPELR – 59604 (SC) in which it unequivocally held that the provisions of Sections 95, 96, 97 and 98 which contained provisions requiring leave to serve a writ issued by the High Court of the State of the Federal Capital Territory but to be served on a party in another state, are not applicable to the Federal High Court. Referring also to its decision in HAJIA UMMA MUKTAR AHMED MOHAMMED v NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP. SC/958/2015 (UNREPORTED), the Apex Court emphasised that the processes of the Federal High Court whose territorial jurisdiction covers the entire country are exempted from the operations of Sections 97 and 98 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act.
The Court held that for the sake of clarity, it is important to emphasise that the Sheriff and Civil Process Act has no applicability to admiralty claims, brought before the Federal High Court. The Apex Court found that the Court of Appeal thus had no business referring to and applying the Sheriff and Civil Process Act in determining the objection raised by the Respondents which bothered on the issuance and service of the originating process in an admiralty action filed at the Federal High Court.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the suit was rightfully commenced by the Appellants under Section 7 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act and Order 6 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules.
Appeal Allowed. Case file remitted back to the trial court for hearing on the merit. Cost of N20,000,000.00 awarded in favour of the Appellants against the Respondents.
Representation
Dr Emeka Akabuogu with Victor Oyegbado for the Appellants.
Paul Omaidu for the Respondents.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)
